Tape exposes man behind al-Qaida

Forum

Today's Forum was written by Avigdor Haselkorn, author of ''The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence,'' and was first published in the Los Angeles Times.

The latest Osama bin Laden tape actually might be good news. But a combination of divergent interests seems to be conspiring to keep us from realizing that.

By claiming ownership for such outrages as the attack on the synagogue in Tunisia; the killing of the French engineers in Pakistan; the bombing of the French tanker off Yemen; the attack on the U.S. Marines in Kuwait; the Moscow theater takeover; and the Bali nightclub bombing, bin Laden confirms that al-Qaida's ability to conduct an attack on the scale of Sept. 11 might have been degraded.

It is possible to argue that the tape is an attempt to claim relevancy. Some of the attacks, like Moscow and Bali, have had little to do operationally with al-Qaida except perhaps in terms of a shared anti-Western ideology. Moreover, some of the incidents that bin Laden praised were failures. The Moscow theater takeover must be seen as a botched operation, and neither the 2,000-year-old synagogue nor the French tanker was destroyed as planned.

Most telling, the Indonesians arrested for the Bali attack have expressed disappointment that their attempts to target Americans largely failed. Yet in the tape, bin Laden alleges that Australia was the target because of its support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

But instead of these interpretations of bin Laden's tape, the American public has been hearing the opposite message.

Al-Qaida, it is said, is still very much in business. President Bush lamented that the message indicated ''yet again that we're at war.'' In fact, some have gone as far as warning that the tape might herald new devastating attacks. Why would the United States help bin Laden's effort to intimidate and frighten?

First, the Bush administration is understandably playing it safe. Because of the secretive nature of the enemy and the great uncertainties the United States faces, Washington, D.C., prefers to err on the side of safety. After the Sept. 11 attacks, worst-case thinking has become the only rule in town.

The administration also is worried that any claim of victory would undermine public alertness. And claiming success could weaken support for the administration's robust foreign policy at a time when war with Iraq is on the agenda.

Also, the counterterrorism ''industry'' in the West has a vested interest in blocking a message that the organization has been crippled.

Finally, there are the opponents of a U.S. attack on Iraq who tout the tape as proof that Bush is going after the wrong enemy and would divert the nation from the war on terrorism. These critics, however, have long maintained that an attack on Iraq would serve al-Qaida and bring it multitudes of new recruits. If the removal of Saddam Hussein would work so clearly in his favor, why would bin Laden go out of his way to warn the United States against invading Iraq?

The answer could be that bin Laden has reached the conclusion that an American offensive would quickly topple the Iraqi leader. He has no interest in another demonstration of overwhelming American superiority. Worse yet, the establishment of a pro-Western regime in Iraq would vividly illustrate bin Laden's disastrous record. Despite his best efforts, the United States was not destroyed. Moreover, it is still well entrenched in the areas that he has claimed for the new Islamic caliphate.

Indeed, the downfall of Saddam would be the best evidence yet that, despite bin Laden's bluster, his Sept. 11 attacks were instrumental in a new American ''empire'' gradually taking shape in Central and South Asia as well as in the Middle East.